The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Based Entirely On Debunked Lobbyist Garbage Data

from the post-truth-apocalypse dept

For several years now one of the broadband industry's biggest criticisms of net neutrality is that it "utterly devastated" investment into broadband networks. But for just as long, we've noted how every time a journalist or analyst actually dissects that claim, they find it's completely unsupportable. What objective analysts do tend to find is that the telecom sector hires an army of economists, consultants, fauxcademics and lobbyists more than happy to manipulate, distort and twist the data until it supports whatever conclusion they're paid to parrot.

That net neutrality didn't harm sector investment isn't really debatable. Just ask industry executives from Frontier, Comcast, Cablevision, Sprint, AT&T, Sonic and even neutrality public enemy number one, Verizon all of who are on public record telling investors the "net neutrality killed sector investment" claim simply isn't true. That this concept is a canard is also supported by public SEC filings and earnings reports, as well as the billions being spent on spectrum as these companies rush toward the fifth generation (5G) wireless networks of tomorrow.

Most of the sector's dollar-per-holler economists just cherry pickedspecific windows of time to track CAPEX increases and declines, intentionally ignoring that many of these changes have nothing to do with net neutrality (for example, Charter's CAPEX dipped when it completed its deployment of digital cable converters) as well as numerous large scale fiber deployments (in areas with competition, at least). But no matter how many times this claim is debunked, it has remained the centerpiece of Ajit Pai's facts-optional assault on net neutrality protections.

That said, the claim that net neutrality harmed investment has, of course, once again popped up again this week as the agency tries to defend its extremely unpopular plan to gut the rules. In fact, it was part of a rather fact-optional fact sheet (pdf) provided by the FCC as it tried to convince consumers that giving a giant middle finger to consumers was a really nifty idea. Unfortunately for the FCC, reporters capable of basic fact checking are, again, pointing out that this claim is entirely untrue:

"Hampered by those rules, broadband companies are cutting back on investing in things like expanding their services to new customers or upgrading their networks, Pai, the FCC chairman, argues.
If that's really what's been happening, that would be terrible, especially in a country that's ever more dependent on the internet and where the digital divide remains pronounced. But there's no evidence to prove Pai's assertion. In fact, the data Pai points to doesn't show anything close to a marked decrease in broadband investment. Instead, it shows that while broadband investment has risen and fallen a little bit over the years, it's been mostly flat since 2013.

The amusing part is, that when challenged to provide real, objective data proving that net neutrality was an investment apocalypse, the FCC engages in little more than a glorified shoulder shrug. Last week, when pressed to defend its claim, FCC spokespeople simply began directing reporters to long-ago debunked data from telco lobbying organizations like USTelecom, which is majority funded and operated by AT&T:

"During a conference call FCC officials held with reporters last week, I asked about this discrepancy between Pai's assertion that investment is declining and what the actual data shows. The officials dismissed my question, saying I had my facts wrong. But they didn't offer any data that would prove Pai's argument.

Reached later, an FCC representative pointed to the USTelecom data (posted above) that Pai previously referenced. The representative declined to make the chairman or anyone else on his staff available for an interview."

Again, if you're playing along at home, that's a government agency defending its frontal assault on popular consumer protections by telling reporters to go ask lobbyists. And when Ajit Pai's FCC is informed that this data isn't reliable and has been debunked, the agency's staffers will just give inquiring reporters a blank stare, and turn their focus toward news outlets more than happy to prop up this kind of blatant bullshit. The fact that few people even seen to find this strange or distasteful is a pretty solid indication of how far down the post-truth rabbit hole we've fallen. And if you're a reporter that continues to take this dated canard at face value, you're part of the problem.

Re: Re: Re:

No matter what you say or do, you won't win when you make a deal with a devil. You might get screwed less or more depending on which devil you make a deal with, but you are getting screwed either way.

It's funny that several Pro NN folks waste no time telling me that I am alienating them while they are busy calling everyone that does not support "their version of control" stupid. I guess it's hard to keep oneself in check.

If you need someone to be nice to you to get you to do the right or better thing, then I would assume that you were never going to do the right or better thing anyways.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I hate the FCC in its entirety. The Agency is in full regulatory capture right now... how will you expect it to correctly enforce NN without corruption? Just because the laws are on the books does not mean that FCC will still not look the other way.

Sure, I would rather have NN than not have it in the current climate, but that is still making a deal with a devil and damn sure not the best solution.

What I want instead is to keep all the regulations for anti-monopoly and anti-trust and the regulations defining operation spaces for consistency. But everyone lies and says that it total de-regulation when it is not in the least.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's because regulations for anti-monopoly and anti-trust are not the same thing as regulations preventing ISP's from screwing with what I see online. That's why people want NN.

By your own argument, anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws are on the books but that doesn't mean the FTC and the rest of the government still doesn't look the other way when it comes to ISPs and cable TV. Yet do we say that we should get rid of those just because they aren't being enforced? No, and that's the same here.

I'd rather have laws on the books that don't get enforced than no laws on the books at all. At least if we have them on the books, there is a chance someone will actually step up and enforce them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"That's because regulations for anti-monopoly and anti-trust are not the same thing as regulations preventing ISP's from screwing with what I see online."

NN is not going to protect you as much as you think it will. Plus this will introduce a new way for government to get more control over the economy and while it looks safe now... it will not be when the next generation is making the decisions. They will be fully content controlled under the guise of protecting content. This is how it ALWAYS GOES DOWN!

How do you keep people to give up their liberty? Tell them that this is to protect it!

"By your own argument, anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws are on the books but that doesn't mean the FTC and the rest of the government still doesn't look the other way when it comes to ISPs and cable TV. Yet do we say that we should get rid of those just because they aren't being enforced? No, and that's the same here."

You completely misunderstood my argument.The laws on the books are not currently being enforced as it is. What possible good do you think these new NN ones will do you? That is the argument! The fox is guarding the hen house with NN! We have regulatory capture, its just that simple no matter what you do telcos are going to get by with raping consumers in multiple ways as long as we have that capture! Sure you might have a few combat wins, but you lose the war!

"I'd rather have laws on the books that don't get enforced than no laws on the books at all. At least if we have them on the books, there is a chance someone will actually step up and enforce them."

Spoken like a person with Stockholms Syndrome.

Free-Market would resolve that problem because people would switch ISP's to those that don't block or throttle.

Only in Free-market, do YOU, the consumer get to have a seat at the table. In a Monopoly like we have no, regardless of if that monopoly is regulatory or capitalist you get NO SAY except what the ISP's or your elected officials ALLOW you to say.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Free-Market would resolve that problem because people would switch ISP's to those that don't block or throttle.

As the foundation for your entire argument this proves your opponents' point.

The free market cannot correct a situation wherein the base problem is a total or near total lack of competition enforced by laws written by the monopolies.

How many high speed ISP choices do you have where you live? Are you aware that the vast majority of the nation has only 1 choice? Do you think the free market has any influence whatsoever in those markets when competition is prevented via bad legislation?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The free market cannot correct a situation wherein the base problem is a total or near total lack of competition enforced by laws written by the monopolies."

That would mean there is no free-market now is there? Free-Market is the victim in your scenario and you are blaming the victim for something it had no hand in. Regulation brought about that monopoly you "claim" to hate. When the FCC was established they openly delclared that they were going to regulate the telcos as natural monopolies. This ensured that they will be keeping those monopolies. So far only the DOJ has been enforcing any anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws. Your fucking bullshit regulations have DONE NOTHING and you still clamor for them in pure ignorance! You are actually work FOR big telco not against them and they know it! You are doing at least 1/2 of the work for them by ensuring that they will have a vehicle in which to buy your consumer ass on a platter through regulatory capture. You politician has no reason to not sell you out. We are watching you be sold out right now and you still ignorantly think your regulations will save you.

This is why you DESERVE this treachery! You worked hard in your ignorance to make it happen! You BEGGED for it!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Never has been and never will be as it is a hypothetical economic model."

A meaningless distinction. Just like we don't have TOTAL 100% regulation we can certainly parts of it. Which means the economy can be partially free, monopolistic, and regulated.

The problem is that you are sacrificing too much free for too much regulation and every attempt to roll back the too much regulation is treated by many to mean that it is all regulation being undone. It's every bit the level of lying this very article is talking about from the ISP's, FCC, and Investors!

All I am seeing is two groups of lying hypocrites calling the other a lying hypocrite while ignoring all sanity in the debate. The problem has become so politically polarized that everyone not in one of the two churches are being ignored.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When the FCC was established they openly delclared that they were going to regulate the telcos as natural monopolies.

This because the "run a wire to each person's home" market is a natural monopoly - that is, one where the most natural and most economical solution is a monopoly.

That is not a value judgment. It does not mean, or say, that a monopoly is a good thing.

All it says is that the choice is not "monopoly or no monopoly", but "regulated monopoly or unregulated monopoly".

The FCC's decision to "regulate the telcos as natural monopolies", did not create those monopolies. By definition, a created monopoly is not natural.

All the FCC's decision did is recognize the reality that trying to force a non-monopoly solution into a situation which is naturally suited to monopoly will cause more harm than leaving the monopoly in place but regulating it will.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"NN is not going to protect you as much as you think it will...How do you keep people to give up their liberty? Tell them that this is to protect it!"

Please explain why it won't protect us and why NN rules are any different than the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. By your logic, we should get rid of the Bill of Rights because that allows the government to control us and take away our freedoms.

"You completely misunderstood my argument."

No, I understood it just fine. You completely ignored my rebuttal. I know that current laws don't get enforced all the time. But without any laws on the books, we are guaranteeing it will NEVER get enforced. If they are on the books then at least there is a chance they will be enforced at some time when someone steps up and says "Hey, you know that's actually against the law.".

"Spoken like a person with Stockholms Syndrome."

Personal attack, irrelevant to the current discussion.

"Free-Market would resolve that problem because people would switch ISP's to those that don't block or throttle."

Agreed. The free market would resolve the problem because we could switch ISPs. The problem is we don't have a free market. ALL ISPs are doing the exact same thing and even if they weren't, the majority of Americans only have access to 1, maybe 2, ISPs where they live.

"I want Liberty! Not your screwed up golden cage!"

So do I. But your plan is not liberty. At best, it places control of what you see online in the hands of big telcos. At worst, well, that pretty much is the worst.

NN is no different than the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It states there are certain things that internet denizens have a right to and they cannot be infringed. Go read the text of the order if you don't believe me. (And yes, I have read it myself)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Please explain why it won't protect us and why NN rules are any different than the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. By your logic, we should get rid of the Bill of Rights because that allows the government to control us and take away our freedoms."

Yea, I got nothing to say to ignorance of this level. I am not even sure you know the difference between a hole in a wall and open sky.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

#1 and #2 are irrelevant to the discussion because it wouldn't matter even if they were on the same level and in the same branch of government. You can easily take NN rules, put them in the Bill of Rights and they work just as well their as they do where they are because as I said, they define rights of the people who use the internet and place protections on those rights, specifically from ISPs.

#3 has not refuted anything I said, merely made an unspecified attack on my logic, which, you have not even pointed out anything specifically wrong with it, other than to say that I'm wrong.

#4 goes along with #3. You give no reason as to why I have not understood, merely stating that I didn't. I have given you specific reasons as to why we are in fact talking about cats in both scenarios. Ironically we are tangentially talking about cats on the internet. "Icanhazcheezburger?" anyone?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I already told you why you did not understand, you did not agree... what else is there to say? We are just talking about two different things and you don't realize it.

You also labeled my accusation of you having Stockholm as a personal attack, it was not. It was a literal description of my view of you. You are so used to being a captive to regulation that you are afraid of making any changes out of fear that things could be worse. In short, you have acclimated to being screwed by regulation and do not want to change how your getting screwed, regardless of whether or not you will be screwed less or more.

You are afraid of change, and you are afraid of having to make your own economic decisions in a free market. You want a politician to make decisions for you and to guard you from big businesses instead of you protecting yourself.

That is what Stockholm's is... a diagnosis about you and your economical position, a personal attack is me just calling you stupid!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That golden cage is the only thing protecting my town from being devoured alive by the Comcast wolf. If it comes down to this type of metaphors, the golden cage is inside a much larger cage with the Comcast wolf. Until the much large cage is destroyed, to allow competition, I want the golden cage. Since the larger cage is built with a mixture of local, state, and federal laws created by ISP lobbyist, they don't even know where to begin to dismantle it. Trying to do anything to make it better, they focus on the one thing that is easy for them to dismantle. Also as a person managing large networks, it is far cheaper for me to run a startup ISP with NN then without. I would need a lot more expensive equipment to manipulate traffic then just limit a person bandwidth to the contracted amount.

I have lost the ability to comprehend how people don't understand that the free market won't correct the issue since startups are prohibited from entering the ISP markets in a majority of places. We only have 1 choice, we have laws that prevent new starts from entering. And I know that these laws exists because I have actively tried to get startups or other smaller ISPs into our county. So how is the free market going to protect us. NN is the only thing protecting us. Get rid of the other stupid laws protecting the monopoly first then maybe, just maybe, NN wouldn't be needed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Except that none of us are advocating for giving up our liberty. As stated before, think of NN as more of a Bill of Rights for the internet, because that is what it is and does.

Nowhere does it state we are ceding control to the government or anyone else. On the contrary what it does do is state that internet users have certain rights that can not and should not be infringed. And anyone found to be infringing on those rights is breaking the law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Except that none of us are advocating for giving up our liberty."

Just because I failed at helping you understand how you have given up your liberty does not mean that you did not give it up. I wish I had a way to describe it so that each of you could understand it better, but I guess that is just the way it is.

"Nowhere does it state we are ceding control to the government or anyone else."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you even understand what NN does? It doesn't strip my liberty, it protects my liberty. It allows me to post what I want, where I want without ISPs throttling, blocking, or limiting me in any way. It gives me just as much right to use the internet as Google. Sure, ISPs just want to open their "Fast Lanes" but they will do that by not expanding their physical network but by limiting their users on the existing network. In actuality they will be creating slow lanes and shoving everyone inside those. Next thing you know, Comcast hates Netflix so it blocks all Netflix traffic. Whoops didn't know that another popular MMO had a similar packet signature and it is blocked. Maybe even a couple small companies sites are blocked too but o well. Don't like Techdirt reporting about these stories about Comcast, better block all traffic to their IP. Comcast won't care. And a majority of their users are limited to Comcast. Sure you can get Satellite but don't expect low latency options to work well. DSL, in my area you might consistently get 5-10% of advertised speeds. Doing some research, I Found out that the DSL lines are completely over saturated and kludged together as no one wants to pay to update the network. Dial up you say, pht, can you even call that internet?He is entirely right that it is like the Bill or Rights for internet. Or do you think the Bill of Rights should be removed? Government doesn't allow slavery. Did we lose our liberty when we stopped the ability to enslave others? NN requires all gatekeepers to treat all user's traffic equally. The only possible people NN hurts is big ISPs as they can't force their users to their ways. ISPs will slowly turn up the heat over time as they know people will get used to it. Every "New" feature will be somehow limiting another. This will stack and stack until the internet has been bastardized from what once made it great.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Do you even understand what NN does? It doesn't strip my liberty, it protects my liberty. It allows me to post what I want, where I want without ISPs throttling, blocking, or limiting me in any way."

Looks like you don't understand NN. There are still plenty of other ways you can be throttled and blocked and limited in some way.

DataCaps could get worse if NN survives, they ARE going to find some way to monetize off of you one way or another and regulatory capture, which is what you asked for, will help them. It's that simple... NN is just one battle in this war over the internet and you are losing fast.

"He is entirely right that it is like the Bill or Rights for internet."

That statement is so damn sycophantic and ignorant you might as well just be fundamentally a lunatic.

"Or do you think the Bill of Rights should be removed? Government doesn't allow slavery."

How in the fuck did we get to that? Are you trying to go Godwin here just with a different subject matter?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I remember those. You just pointed to two article about how the FCC is letting ISPs slide around the NN rules. Only shows that the FCC is not holding up to its standards. Even then, NN should stay and FFC administration needs to be changed.

"Are you trying to go Godwin here just with a different subject matter?"Only to your standards. You seem to think everyone's liberty is going to be lost by allowing NN by quoting Franklin. I am just using your extremes.

"Why are you fucks so fucking stupid? Seriously, can you at least answer that without fucking it up?"

Lawn chair rental

People are not satisfied. Solution: get rid of net neutrality. Now you can also sell priority tickets allowing people to push others off a lawn chair.

Everybody profits. Well, almost. Actual lawn chair production is ailing. It's not that there would be a lack of demand, but the only one allowed to rent them out is too busy marketing priority access to be interested in getting more chairs.

Re: Lawn chair rental

Imagine that the US road network was suddenly handed over to private corporations to own and support. What do you think would happen to it WITHOUT regulations to govern their behaviour?

Less-used roads would disappear. The cost of using them (tolls) would vary for everyone depending on what you wanted to use them for and where you wanted to go, even if everyone paid a (varying) subscription to use them (regardless that they were built with tax money). Private users would be secondary to corporate users - tough luck if it means you never get to work on time - because they can afford better contracts. If you can't get to where you need to go for any reason, sorry, SOL.

Either way, the road owners get rich, and everyone else gets a lot poorer, with many towns and villages now being wiped off the map due to no transport options to anywhere else, even if the companies 'promised' it would happen - and because they bought off the state and national government, these local communities can't even build their OWN roads.

This is the situation net-neutrality seeks to prevent - just like the road network - enabling anyone to use it within the basic regulations/laws required, requiring those that need it to be supplied as best as possible, for any and all purposes at any time, (required maintenance permitting).

Anyone against net-neutrality is against CIVILIZATION ITSELF, because this is how its infrastructure has to operate, in order for it to fully exist.

Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

@"Imagine that the US road network was suddenly handed over to private corporations to own and support."

We don't have to imagine that! Numerous examples.

Since the great state of Oklahoma was featured here recently, I can tell you that Interstate 44 is a toll road, and yet the older (rather scenic) roads that rather wanderingly more or less parallel it are WELL maintained.

Anyway, like all "analogies", yours is crafted for purpose of proving whatever you wish, easily disproven with an actual, and therefore useless.

Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

'Examples'.

Not good enough. We all know why modern toll roads exist - because TAXES aren't enough to support the infrastructure many states/municipalities need (from turnpikes to bridges/tunnels etc.) - they're too low.

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INTERNET.

Why?

Because the taxes THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID to build the infrastructure have not been used correctly to provide the service the providers promised - it's not that the money provided is not enough, when you factor in the declining cost of providing the service, and ongoing subscription cost vs cost of maintenance and new builds, it's just the corporations involved are too greedy.

This is why my above example was an ANALOGY - if ALL roads were toll-based, and built using taxes in the same way as the internet is, THERE'D BE RIOTS - the reason why toll roads are used is to LOWER the use of TAXES to pay for it - if that wasn't true THEY'D HAVE NO REASON TO EXIST.

But that's exactly the case with the majority of your internet infrastructure - PUBLICLY FINANCED but PRIVATELY OWNED AND RUN - and you want them to have ALL the power over who, how, what, when, where and why it should be used?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

Nope - it's VERY correct - if you think I pulled that out of thin air, you'd be extremely wrong.

The problem is that infrastructure spending in the Us is primarily paid for by gas taxes, which haven't increased since 1993, and take in even less due to more fuel efficient vehicles.

Taxes on gasoline and diesel are the primary sources of transportation funding at the state and federal level. Due to inflation and improved fuel efficiency, these taxes are increasingly inadequate to maintain the transportation system. In most states and at the federal level, the real fuel tax rates decrease because they are fixed at a cents-per-gallon amount rather than indexed to inflation.

If Washington is spending less than it should, falling tax revenues are partly to blame. Revenue from taxes on petrol and diesel flow into trust funds that are the primary source of federal money for roads and mass transit. That flow has diminished to a drip. America's petrol tax is low by international standards, and has not gone up since 1993. While the real value of the tax has eroded, the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure has gone up. As a result, the highway trust fund no longer supports even current spending. Congress has repeatedly been forced to top up the trust fund.

the other two do not disprove what he says either. I am not saying he is right, but I am saying you have not dis-proven him. In large sense you are both correct, but arguing in the weeds in a meaningless fashion. We already know that the American government has very little legal accountability with money. Most reports are likely not even 70% accurate either because of it.

Right now we are very much in the situation where we cannot know the actual facts because those are protected information to keep people ignorant. It is impossible to know if taxes really can fund infrastructure either over, at, or under expectation. Too many politicians and offices have their dirty little crony hands in them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

The thing about waste is that it's ALWAYS there - which means, UNLESS you can prove it's gotten worse, the historical context is a WASH...

Within this context, the income from taxes to support road infrastructure in the US, is getting lower. FACT. If 20% of that has ALWAYS been lost to waste, then that has no bearing on the lower income, only that it affects all of it, ever.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

"You didn't read the intro to the paper then, just the title?"

Hey, you cannot fault someone for looking at a title and disregarding the link based on that. Next time say the title is misleading read further into it and I will not allow a title to mislead me. I assumed you just made a mistake in the link you want to post and moved on to the other two.

You will notice I did not bash you for it, just asked how were they relevant?

"The thing about waste is that it's ALWAYS there - which means, UNLESS you can prove it's gotten worse, the historical context is a WASH..."

I don't disagree, I am just saying that the wash applies to your position as well.

"Within this context, the income from taxes to support road infrastructure in the US, is getting lower. FACT. If 20% of that has ALWAYS been lost to waste, then that has no bearing on the lower income, only that it affects all of it, ever."

Again, I don't disagree with you, I am just saying there is not enough evidence in those document to evince a solid conclusion.

I think you are both largely correct the problem is that infra only has to cost $1 more than taxes to prove the other poster wrong, while you are not able to conclusively prove that infrastructure will actually cost $1 more than taxes.

It's not that you cannot prove it if you have solid data, it's that you cannot send me any government documents that I will trust the quality of.

I have seen so many lies and inaccuracies that I no longer trust anything on a document... not even from a professional. I have looked at document that I wrote myself and sometimes ask... just what the fuck was I thinking for writing that?

I am ore inclined to trust the 3rd party links you provided but also know that they too rely on honest government accounting which I already know for a fact is not accurate in the least. Honesty is the antithesis to government. Government first job is to trick the people into thinking they need one. They never did, but what people think they need is often not reality. Like a drug addict, they think they need drugs, but a person not on drugs knows better.

Again, I think you are both mostly right... but also not directly talking about the exact same thing. You are at least specifically talking about taxes in regards to infrastructure itself, which is better for your argument.

But they appear to be talking about taxes in general which gives them a stronger case than just the specific taxes you are referring too, or perhaps they actually want to create a new tax just for this but failed to mention it. Unless they come back and clarify what they mean, they still have an avenue of ambiguity to recover from.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

"Hey, you cannot fault someone for looking at a title and disregarding the link based on that. Next time say the title is misleading read further into it and I will not allow a title to mislead me. I assumed you just made a mistake in the link you want to post and moved on to the other two."

Really? At first I thought your stance was based on actual information. You just judge a book by its cover? Have you actually read up about anything you are arguing against? You are completely opposed to Net Neutrality. What do you think NN does? Almost everyone I have talked to in person that are against net neutrality are doing so because they are misinformed about what it does.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawn chair rental

I'm not sure you can ever truly understand the NATURE of the problems your country has, if you cannot recognise and understand the specific nature of the issues I just gave you.

Which is why government exists - because individuals are EXTREMELY bad at regulating their own behaviour, knowledge and understanding to solve problems on a larger scale - and internet is as large as it gets.

Unfortunately, the nature of government also means, like any other tool created by humans, it can be used to both ill and good. And since so many people refuse to understand it, they seek to destroy it, which leaves the rich and powerful, now often using corporations, too, to rule instead.

At the minute some corporations want to RULE the internet - the only thing standing in their way is government regulation - net neutrality rules.

The US government is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a feudal state - if you wish to destroy it, then rule you they will. You've already given it to the corporations, rich and fascist - why not get rid of it all together?

Re: You're simply asserting that the partisans you favor are "objective".

""FCC engages in little more than a glorified shoulder shrug." -- That's all anyone can do when arguing the future."

Except that they were arguing over the past, not the future. They were speaking about assertions about recorded history that have been proven to be false by recorded historical facts and when called out on it all they do is shrug.

The rest of your post is an incoherent mess and I cannot parse exactly what you are trying to say because of all the grammatical errors.

Re: Re: Re: You're simply asserting that the partisans you favor are "objective".

Logical fallacy and incorrect assumptions. Many historians agree on history 100%. Pretty sure everyone agrees that the US and their allies won WW2. Unless you want to try and make the case we didn't.

We are talking about independently verifiable facts, report earnings filed, financial statements, statements and documents provided to investors. These all prove that NN rules didn't hurt investment. And when called out on it, Pai and friends have nothing to come back with because what they state isn't true and they have no verifiable facts to back it up.

Just because something is not obvious doesn't make it false. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't make it any less true either.

"Logical fallacy and incorrect assumptions. Many historians agree on history 100%. Pretty sure everyone agrees that the US and their allies won WW2. Unless you want to try and make the case we didn't."

Total Strawman argument.

My life savings for a person that is not busy trying to reword what I write to create a cocked up fallacy so they can try to make a rebuttal.

I asked, if you can find me two historians that agree on history 100%. This means ALL, not just a single fucking fact in a single fucking event! You can easily find a lot of people that agree on just ONE thing. Stop being an idiot! You didn't even address 0.1% of the scope of my request.

"These all prove that NN rules didn't hurt investment."

Did I speak to any of that in my post genius? NO I did not, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in on a discussion about someone's mistake on history? Stick to the subject matter mr. strawman!

"Just because something is not obvious doesn't make it false. And just because you didn't know about it, doesn't make it any less true either."

Well no shit Sherlock, but I appreciate the immediate education. Perhaps someone reading will actually be able to benefit from it!

And speaking of which... 1 historian not knowing about something makes for a historian not agreeing with another that did know it 100%... getting the picture yet?

Actually it's not a strawman argument. My original statement was not about history as a whole, it was about a single event in history, namely investment in broadband networks over the last few years. You are the one who tried to expand it to history as a whole.

"This means ALL, not just a single fucking fact in a single fucking event!"

The original discussion was not about history as a whole, in fact it was about a "single fact in a single event", which is easily verifiable and leaves no room for disagreement.

"Did I speak to any of that in my post genius? NO I did not, so why are you trying to shoehorn it in on a discussion about someone's mistake on history?"

Pai his supporters' only argument against NN is that it hurt investment. And the OP's post referenced it when he quoted the response of the FCC when they were called out for using facts that were incorrect about this. I didn't shoehorn it in, that's what this entire thread has been about.

As to your final statement, to disagree on something, both parties have to have knowledge about it. If one party knows something and the other doesn't, they aren't disagreeing, one is just merely not in possession of the information of the other one. I can't disagree with something that I have no knowledge of, vice versa I can't agree with it either because I don't know it exists. For example, flying is generally regarded as safer than driving. We can agree or disagree on this point. However, if I don't even know that airplanes exist, I can't agree or disagree with it because I don't know that there is an option other than driving.

Quick read this definition"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

You see, I am not refuting that the FCC's attach on NN is based on junk data. I happen to agree with Karl, I agree that the FCC is a bunch of liars, I am not refuting this in the least, you are a creating a strawman by implying that I am refuting this. I am not refuting this, I am not refuting this at all, and just in case you still are not reading, I am not refuting that the FCC's attack on NN is based on junk data. So why don't you STFU and STFD and call it a day hmmm? Before you stick your stank nasty foot back up in yo stank nasty mouth!

Now fuck off!

This is about his history comment only, and nothing else!

Holy Fucking Shit this is what I get for trying to help stupid fucking internet people, isn't it?

This is the OP's statement that I responded to about history: "@ "FCC engages in little more than a glorified shoulder shrug." -- That's all anyone can do when arguing the future." The OP's statement references the following statement from the article: "The amusing part is, that when challenged to provide real, objective data proving that net neutrality was an investment apocalypse, the FCC engages in little more than a glorified shoulder shrug."

My response was: "Except that they were arguing over the past, not the future. They were speaking about assertions about recorded history that have been proven to be false by recorded historical facts and when called out on it all they do is shrug."

We have been talking about broadband investment from the very beginning. It's not a strawman, that's what we are discussing. The OP brought it up in the first place, I responded that historical fact doesn't back up those assertions, and you claimed that no two historians can agree on history 100%, to which I replied that historians can agree on history and especially on individual points, which is what we have been talking about from the beginning, a specific point in history.

So if you have not been trying to defend the FCC's position, why did you post in the first place and why are we debating this?

"So if you have not been trying to defend the FCC's position, why did you post in the first place and why are we debating this?"

I cannot help how you arrived at your silly conclusions. I am just saying your arrival is WRONG!

I am not trying to defend the FCC, I want it abolished. Ajit Pai is every bit the rat bastard you folks deserve for having supported the FCC all this time. I told you that the power your give the politicians you do like will be used against you when the politicians you don't like take that seat. You did this to yourselves! I just happened to be along for the ride laughing at you and saying I told you so.

Regulatory capture at it's finest... Unfortunately more people are concerned with what that fugly orange moron is tweeting about and getting worked up over it (and rightly so) instead of making a ruckus over things like this which are going on right out in the open and will actually effect our nation far more then his weak mouth farts.I can't tell you how many people I know or meet who no nothing about what is going on with net neutrality, the CFPB or any of the other important issues... People that care, not trumpies, just people who are blinded and outraged by the primary freak show the press keeps showing.

Why is "investment" even an argument?

Assume for a moment that industry lobbyists are right, and that NN leads to lower investment by ISPs. Why is this a valid argument to remove NN?

EPA pollution rules clearly lead to less investment by auto companies, yet we still have the rules. FDA rules lead to less investment by drug companies, it would obviously be much easier to bring new drugs to the market without all that onerous testing. Building regs probably help to make sure that buildings don't fall down, but they undoubtedly led to higher building costs and lower investment in the industry.

Anyone?

Anyone finish that TRUTH AND FACT CHECKING MACHINE??We have allot of people to use it on..

I liked the NET before it got POPULAR..When you could do a small search and find all the info you needed/wanted..AND IT WAS TRUE.. Its gotten as bad as TV/newspapers, and you can find one that Tells things in ANY WAY you want, and Pass blame and innuendo..Abound..

If you mix apples and oranges, you can come up with any answer you like.

Comcast is a good example. Everyone says "look, they are investing even with NN!". Those people, however, would be ignoring WHY they are investing. Comcast is trying to get away from their legacy cable system and instead move to an IPTV model. In many ways it's cheaper for them to do, more secure, allows them to offer an almost endless number of channels, and (unsurprisingly) locks customers into a proprietary X1 cable box.

To do this, they need to upgrade their network to be able to stream (without interruption) 5M per stream per customer. As a result, they are moving forward with plenty of investment as they move to replace their aging cable system.

NN or not, they would be making the same investments because it's the path they chose 5 or more years ago.

The truth is 2 years is too short of a period of time to see a real difference. Telecom runs in a much longer cycle time for their equipment and network. Plans are made years ahead and they are executed and the money spent over the period of time.

The real answer will come 5 to 10 years from now, when companies may choose to stand pat with their current technology for a couple of more years rather than moving forward with new investments. It may show up in ISPs not wanting to add more peering or connectivity to their networks, or reserving a higher percentage for their IPTV and telephony applications rather than assigning it to general internet use.

2 years is too short of a time to see the real effects. By the time you do see them, it may be too late to fix them.

Re:

>or reserving a higher percentage for their IPTV and telephony applications rather than assigning it to general internet use.

And there is why net neutrality is required, to protect customers from the conflict of interest at the ISP, where providing their own paid content is more important than letting user go to Netflix, YouTube etc., which are competing with their content for eyeballs.

Re: Re:

Except it isn't a conflict of interest. IPTV travels over the same network, but isn't "internet" traffic. There is nothing in net neutrality that defines how a company can use it's own network gear or other non-internet services they can offer.

Comcast is moving from "cable" to IP TV, which delivers the same cable TV product but using digital transmission and is totally addressable on a one by one basis. It's sort of the same thing offered via FIOS, or Bell offers in Canada with it's "Fibe" product.

Re: Re: Re:

You do not see improving their own IPTV service while throttling similar services from a competitor as conflict of interest, leading to a selective throttling of competing services as a problem. In other words you would hand control over access to the Internet to those who would like to kill it.